In this booklet a comparative survey is offered offour model income tax conventions: the OECD drafts of 1963 and 1977, the United Nations Model of 1980 and the proposed United States Treasury's model of 1981. In order to facilitate the compari son, the text of the 1977 OECD draft is used as reference. Additions and alternatives in any of the other models to this 1977 OECD text are italicized. Omissions from the 1977 OECD model in the other drafts are indicated either by a blank space (where an entire paragraph has been suppressed) or by brackets [] ( in case of smaller omissions). The Hague, May 1983 Kees van Raad OECD 1963 OECD 1977 OECD DRAFT DOUBLE TAXA OECD MODEL DOUBLE TAXA TION CONVENTION ON INCOME TION CONVENTION ON INCOME AND CAPITAL AND CAPITAL 1963 1977 TITLE[] TITLE OF THE CONVENTION Convention between (State A) and (State Convention between (State A) and (State B) for the avoidance of double taxation B) for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and on with respect to taxes on income and m capital capital 1 PREAMBLE OF THE CONVENTION CHAPTER I CHAPTER I SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION Article 1 Article 1 PERSONAL SCOPE PERSONAL SCOPE This Convention shall apply to persons This Convention shall apply to persons who are residents of one or both of the who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. Contracting States.

This article provides critical reflections on the 2017 revision of article 4(3) of the OECD Model Convention and its Commentary regarding dual residence of persons other than individuals. These changes and their implementation warrant an assessment of their desirability, including an in-depth review of their impact on other provisions of the OECD Model, as well as the (re)consideration of alternative mechanisms to resolve dual-residence situations. In the light of the above, this article provides a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of rules governing dual residence of companies formed by incorporation and addresses, from a policy as well as a legal perspective, the main criticalities associated with the above-mentioned revisions, most notably the overarching legal uncertainty that such amendments may generate, the potential instances of international double taxation that may arise therefrom and the excessive discretion with which competent authorities would be entrusted in dealing with the matter, a circumstance against which taxpayers may be left with very limited judicial remedies. Full-text Paper.

The general report and the branch reports discuss the tax treatment of (mainly) cross-border interest payments for borrowers and lenders. It encompasses the various means by which a corporation ("borrower") based in one jurisdiction finances its domestic and foreign (business) activities and the various means by which another corporation ("lender") funds business activities in another juristiction.

This contribution deals with the question whether - from the perspective of cross-border neutrality - tax reductions for personal circumstances should be applied only by the country of residence, or whether they should also be granted by the source country, and, if so, how such tax reductions should be allocated between the two countries. It starts from the rule for the deduction of business expenses, which is often also denied by source countries in the absence of a permanent establishment. Tax neutrality would require taxation of only net business income in the source country. The paper refers to Art. 24(3) of the OECD Model, which specifically excludes non-resident taxpayers from personal deductions in the country of source. It also refers to ECJ case law prescribing the mandatory deduction for personal circumstances in the source country, when substantially all of the income is earned in that country. However, deductions for business expenses mostly relate to income that is specifically taxable in the source country. Deductions for personal circumstances are mostly related to overall income, part of which may be taxable in the country of residence. The result would be an unjustified benefit to the taxpayer because of a double deduction for personal circumstances. In order to avoid such double deduction, the paper submits a proposal for "fractional taxation", doing away with the traditional distinction between residence and source countries. Each country calculates the tax liability on worldwide taxable income, taking into account all personal related deductions, but it applies its tax rules only to the pro-rata fraction of the income that is subject to tax in its own jurisdiction. The principle is illustrated in the conclusion by a concrete example of tax calculation.Full-text Paper.

This article analyses the meaning of the definitions of dividend and interest in the OECD Model by reference to their historical evolution. In the dividend definition the origin of 'other corporate rights' is traced to a 1958 OEEC Working Party minute in which the same French expression used in six treaties is translated into English in six different ways, one of which was 'other similar corporate profit-sharing rights'. Hence the reference in the title to something lost in translation. Income can fall within both definitions (dividend and interest) by being taxed as a dividend and falling within the listed items of interest. The Commentary attempts to resolve the overlap in thin capitalization situations by unsatisfactory amendments made in 1992 based on whether the lender effectively shares the risks run by the company: the overlap needs to be solved by an amendment to the Model.Full-text Paper.

Een snel en compleet beeld van het internationale en Europese belastingrecht.0.